Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3161  
Old 05-09-2019, 7:16 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Man, that would be amazing if there was a summary reversal this year. Maybe I could finally buy the Sig m17 i have been lusting over.
Reply With Quote
  #3162  
Old 05-10-2019, 5:05 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 160
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Cory Booker’s latest collection of anti-gun proposals (campaign fodder) would include making the micro-stamping requirement nation wide. I’m sure we’ll hear more of this as the rest of the Democratic candidates try to out-do each other on anti-gun hysteria. It is time for SCOTUS to finally end the twisting and distortion the lower courts have done to Heller for the past eleven years to put a stop to the trampling of the 2nd amendment into a completely obscured right.
Reply With Quote
  #3163  
Old 05-10-2019, 5:32 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 579
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They are lining these cases up like dominoes to get knocked down. If they agreed with the decision of the lower courts they would just deny cert.

I think it's going to be a super slammer, and the anti gun industry is going to be reeling ..
Reply With Quote
  #3164  
Old 05-10-2019, 8:36 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,819
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I hope Thomas gets to write the opinion. Based on his dissent in Peruta he is itching to help the dying 2a.
Reply With Quote
  #3165  
Old 05-10-2019, 9:31 AM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I don't think we know how broadly the SCOTUS
But on Pena I'm still betting they are working on a summary reversal. Even if I'm right it is possible that if they cannot generate a summary reversal which is to the liking of the majority then they can still issue cert or deny cert and go from there.
If they were working on a summary reversal, the case would show up on the docket each week as re-listed, but it isn't. The case is on hold pending the NY case.
Reply With Quote
  #3166  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:02 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,350
iTrader: 92 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
If they were working on a summary reversal, the case would show up on the docket each week as re-listed, but it isn't. The case is on hold pending the NY case.
Honestly at this point, that’s the best possible outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #3167  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:23 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,974
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
If they were working on a summary reversal, the case would show up on the docket each week as re-listed, but it isn't. The case is on hold pending the NY case.
Why would they list something to be heard in conference if they have already decided on a summary reversal?
Reply With Quote
  #3168  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:55 AM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Why would they list something to be heard in conference if they have already decided on a summary reversal?
I don't know but that's how they do it.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/f...stions-orders/

Quote:
Question: What does “the Court did not act” mean?

Answer: When we say that “the Court did not act” on a particular case, that literally means that there is nothing in the order list about that particular case. But you can often learn more about the possible fate of the case as soon as later in the day. (See below.)

Question: What does it mean for the Court to hold a case?

Answer: When the Court is holding a case, that means that it is waiting to act on the case until some later, unspecified time. A “hold” does not appear on the order list; the case’s electronic docket simply will not reflect any further action. In most scenarios, a case is being held for one of two reasons: (1) the Court is already considering another case presenting a similar issue on the merits, and it believes that the resolution of that case could affect its decision on the held case; or (2) the Court is waiting for another petition for review, presenting a similar question, to be ready for it to consider. Unfortunately, the Court does not tell us why it is holding a case; although the reason is often fairly obvious, sometimes it can be harder to figure out.

Question: What does it mean for the Court to relist a case?

Answer: When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.
Reply With Quote
  #3169  
Old 05-10-2019, 1:11 PM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's what a summary reversal looks like (Caetano):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/14-10078.htm

Notice it's relisted for every conference.

Compare to Pena (and Mance, which is the same):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-843.html

Discussed in one conference, and then nothing. That means it's being held. Unless there's another roster case they think they might get a petition for soon (there isn't), the most likely reason they're holding it is that they think the outcome of the NY case might have bearing on it.

To be clear:

1. Pena is definitely being held (they're definitely not working on a summary reversal -- maybe they will eventually, but they're not right now).
2. We don't know why it's being held, but it's very likely it's to wait for the outcome of the NY case.
Reply With Quote
  #3170  
Old 05-10-2019, 3:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post

To be clear:

1. Pena is definitely being held (they're definitely not working on a summary reversal -- maybe they will eventually, but they're not right now).
2. We don't know why it's being held, but it's very likely it's to wait for the outcome of the NY case.
I agree because the NY case directly raises the issue of the standard of review and the manner in which that review is to be performed. As the opening brief in that case argues, the liberal circuits are giving no more than lip service to the "intermediate scrutiny" analysis to the point where the Second Circuit accepted an opinion unsupported by any facts at all that there is a "public safety" benefit to the NYC ordinance. Others have done the same. If the Court concludes, as Thomas would argue, that strict scrutiny applies the same as it does for any other fundamental civil right, then Pena will be reversed and remanded "for reconsideration of the standards announced in" the NYC case.
Reply With Quote
  #3171  
Old 05-10-2019, 4:09 PM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
If the Court concludes, as Thomas would argue, that strict scrutiny applies the same as it does for any other fundamental civil right, then Pena will be reversed and remanded "for reconsideration of the standards announced in" the NYC case.
From your lips to Roberts' ears. Though strict scrutiny doesn't apply in all cases to all fundamental rights. For example, intermediate scrutiny is used for 'time, place, and manner' restrictions on free speech.
Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 05-10-2019, 5:08 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 621
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
If the Court concludes, as Thomas would argue, that strict scrutiny applies the same as it does for any other fundamental civil right, then Pena will be reversed and remanded "for reconsideration of the standards announced in" the NYC case.
(emphasis added)

Why do you believe J. Thomas would argue that strict scrutiny applies?
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 05-10-2019, 5:50 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thomas ain’t no fan of scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 05-10-2019, 6:09 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
If they were working on a summary reversal, the case would show up on the docket each week as re-listed, but it isn't. The case is on hold pending the NY case.
Do you know that there is a mechanism to put a petition for certiorari on hold and effectively stop the listing and distribution until another case is determined - maybe in a whole different court year?

Somehow this doesn't seem to me to be more likely than is the idea that they may be working on summary reversal.

IANAL and I'm not a big court watcher. That said, I've never heard of the SCOTUS putting a petition for cert on hold until the decision on a case which has only recently been granted cert. Maybe it happens at a rate which would stagger me but I somehow suspect it would be more likely to grant cert to both cases and maybe hear them together.


What i find attractive about the idea of summary reversal is that it seems to me that I heard that an involved lawyer said that good things are happening. I'm not sure that putting Pena on hold until the NY case is heard is a good thing. I also think I can reasonably speculate (while admitting that I'm speculating) that they could be attempting to craft a summary reversal which would be preferred by a majority of the court over the alternative granting or denial of cert. The summary reversal scenario is thus not invoking an unknown hold and actually admits that if a suitable summary reversal is not agreed that it could be granted or denied cert.

I also think that Pena would be a reasonable choice for a summary reversal since it seems to me that the law is in rather flagrant violation of the Constitution and precedent. I think a summary reversal could thus be written on fairly narrow grounds.

So I'm still betting on summary reversal but admit that I could be very wrong.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 05-10-2019, 6:12 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is online now
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,470
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I wonder if judge Benitez's decision in Duncan and its reasoning will be used as an example of "this is how it's to be done"?
Essentially saying the second protects arms, their possession and use, so it is off limits to these sorts of laws for the most part.
Reply With Quote
  #3176  
Old 05-10-2019, 8:35 PM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Do you know that there is a mechanism to put a petition for certiorari on hold and effectively stop the listing and distribution until another case is determined - maybe in a whole different court year?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
So I'm still betting on summary reversal but admit that I could be very wrong.
I wish they were working on a summary reversal too, but they're not. If they were, they'd be relisting it each week.
Reply With Quote
  #3177  
Old 05-11-2019, 9:16 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,974
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
Yes.



I wish they were working on a summary reversal too, but they're not. If they were, they'd be relisting it each week.
The Summary reverse could be pending the New York case though. So, for now it’s being held. Summary reversal would come after the outcome of NY
Reply With Quote
  #3178  
Old 05-11-2019, 9:40 AM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah I'm not saying there will never be a summary reversal, I'm saying that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is that the case is being held.
Reply With Quote
  #3179  
Old 05-11-2019, 4:25 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There never be a summary reversal. Roberts ain’t doing that before elections.
Reply With Quote
  #3180  
Old 05-11-2019, 8:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
(emphasis added)

Why do you believe J. Thomas would argue that strict scrutiny applies?
Because of his dissent from the denial of cert in Peruta, I think it was. A very forceful argument that the Second (despite its name) is not a second class right, and is entitled to the same stringent review as limitations on any other fundamental right.
Reply With Quote
  #3181  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:10 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 621
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Because of his dissent from the denial of cert in Peruta, I think it was. A very forceful argument that the Second (despite its name) is not a second class right, and is entitled to the same stringent review as limitations on any other fundamental right.
I think you should re-read Justice Thomas's dissent:
Quote:
In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150–1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff ’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home
Next, read Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II:
Quote:
Put in simple terms, the issue with respect to what test to apply to gun bans and regulations is this: Are gun bans and regulations to be analyzed based on the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition (as well as by appropriate analogues thereto when dealing with modern weapons and new circumstances, see infra Part I.B)? Or may judges recalibrate the scope of the Second Amendment right based on judicial assessment of whether the law advances a sufficiently compelling or important government interest to override the individual right? And if the latter, is the proper test strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny?
As the two passages I quoted (and more passages in the full dissents) indicate, the justices are proposing/shaping a new test for determining the constitutionality of laws regulating firearms that does not utilize the rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny analysis. If a regulation is not consistent with the text, history, and traditions of the Second Amendment, then the regulation fails.

I think you can expect a Christmas present when the NYSRPA opinion is published, but don't expect the Christmas present to look like strict scrutiny.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #3182  
Old 05-12-2019, 2:45 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,032
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
I think you should re-read Justice Thomas's dissent:


Next, read Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II:


As the two passages I quoted (and more passages in the full dissents) indicate, the justices are proposing/shaping a new test for determining the constitutionality of laws regulating firearms that does not utilize the rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny analysis. If a regulation is not consistent with the text, history, and traditions of the Second Amendment, then the regulation fails.

I think you can expect a Christmas present when the NYSRPA opinion is published, but don't expect the Christmas present to look like strict scrutiny.
Only question is how CJ Roberts votes.
Reply With Quote
  #3183  
Old 05-13-2019, 1:05 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Justice Thomas' dissent was citing to the original panel decision. A new test? Possible, but that would go against a heavy tide of interpretation of fundamental rights under a strict scrutiny standard.
Reply With Quote
  #3184  
Old 05-13-2019, 1:15 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,032
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Justice Thomas' dissent was citing to the original panel decision. A new test? Possible, but that would go against a heavy tide of interpretation of fundamental rights under a strict scrutiny standard.
Maybe. But somehow, I don't see Justices Gorsuch or Kavanaugh actions being tempered by past interpretations. More likely would be CJ Roberts having a problem and reining in the cowboys.
Reply With Quote
  #3185  
Old 05-13-2019, 2:20 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,329
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
From your lips to Roberts' ears. Though strict scrutiny doesn't apply in all cases to all fundamental rights. For example, intermediate scrutiny is used for 'time, place, and manner' restrictions on free speech.
It's not arbitrary and it doesn't translate directly to 2A. The need for self defense is unpredictable and immediate in nature, so the reasoning as to where the intermediate scrutiny can be applied in 2A will be quite different too.

My guess is that regulations about purchasing or transfers in general might have lower standards of review, but the core of keeping and bearing should be protected.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #3186  
Old 05-13-2019, 2:44 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
I think you should re-read Justice Thomas's dissent:


Next, read Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II:
As the two passages I quoted (and more passages in the full dissents) indicate, the justices are proposing/shaping a new test for determining the constitutionality of laws regulating firearms that does not utilize the rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny analysis. If a regulation is not consistent with the text, history, and traditions of the Second Amendment, then the regulation fails.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #3187  
Old 05-13-2019, 5:39 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 621
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Wow. That was a lot of analysis to reach, "we'll know more after the Court issues an opinion in NYSRPA."
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #3188  
Old 05-13-2019, 6:31 PM
93chipper 93chipper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The handgun roster is a absolute joke and a problem because of the black market after all look at how many police officers got in trouble for straw purchases and I don’t even know why they are exempt from the law if their job is to enforce it..
Reply With Quote
  #3189  
Old 05-13-2019, 6:41 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
I think you should re-read Justice Thomas's dissent:


Next, read Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II:

As the two passages I quoted (and more passages in the full dissents) indicate, the justices are proposing/shaping a new test for determining the constitutionality of laws regulating firearms that does not utilize the rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny analysis. If a regulation is not consistent with the text, history, and traditions of the Second Amendment, then the regulation fails.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf:
Generally, the courts have adopted a two-step framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. First, courts ask whether the regulated person, firearm, or place comes within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections. If not, the law does not implicate the Second Amendment. But if so, the court next employs the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny—to assess whether the law passes constitutional muster. In deciding what level of scrutiny is warranted, courts generally ask whether the challenged law burdens core Second Amendment conduct, like the ability to use a firearm for self-defense in the home. If a law substantially burdens core Second Amendment activity, courts typically will apply strict scrutiny. Otherwise, courts generally will apply intermediate scrutiny. Most challenged laws have been reviewed for intermediate scrutiny, where a court asks whether a law is substantially related to an important governmental interest. And typically, the viability of a firearm restriction will depend on what evidence the government puts forth to justify the law. Yet sometimes courts take a different or modified approach from that described above and ask whether a challenged regulation falls within a category deemed “presumptively lawful” by Heller. If the law falls within such a category, a court does not need to apply a particular level of scrutiny in reviewing the restriction because the law does not facially violate the Second Amendment.
Congressional Research Office, "Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence," (2019), pp. 2.

Compare.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [I]For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

State regulation of arms ownership is presumptively valid, based on the history of the regulations:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Id.

Be careful what you wish for. People repeat the slogan's "originalist" and "historical" without delving more deeply into the implications. Namely, those originalist and historical implications are that a) large populations in the U.S. up to the 20th Century were not "originally" understood to be worthy of arms ownership and 2nd Amendment applying to them, and b) because a form of regulation is historically ancient it must be valid. When these latter analyses are employed by the Court, no scrutiny will be applied and the regulation will be upheld. Such analyses are inconsistent with our contemporary construction of the 2nd Amendment implicating a broad right to armament extended to the largest number of people, for the broadest purposes.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-14-2019 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3190  
Old 05-13-2019, 9:42 PM
aboof aboof is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
State regulation of arms ownership is presumptively valid, based on the history of the regulations:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Id.

Be careful what you wish for. People repeat the slogan's "originalist" and "historical" without delving more deeply into the implications. Namely, those originalist and historical implications are that a) large populations in the U.S. up to the 20th Century were not "originally" understood to be worthy of arms ownership and 2nd Amendment applying to them, and b) because a form of regulation is historically ancient it must be valid. When these latter analyses are employed by the Court, no scrutiny will be applied and the regulation will be upheld. Such analyses are inconsistent with our contemporary construction of the 2nd Amendment implicating a broad right to armament extended to the largest number of people, for the broadest purposes.
For much of American history, the constitution didn't apply fully and equally to women, African Americans, or maybe even white men who didn't own land. Now it does. The fact that it didn't (and that now it does) doesn't have any bearing on current 2A jurisprudence. We understand the 2A to apply equally now, as we do all rights.

As far as "longstanding prohibitions," I think your highlighting might be bit editorial. Scalia may be saying, "we're not upending these specific things," rather than, "we're not upending anything that's longstanding." But more importantly, for most of American history, the 2A (and the rest of the bill of rights) applied only to the federal government, not the states. A ban on concealed carry in Boston in 1789 doesn't imply anything about the 2A in 2019, because the 2A didn't apply to the Boston or Massachusetts governments then, but it does now (as of McDonald in 2010).
Reply With Quote
  #3191  
Old 05-14-2019, 6:10 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 946
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
As far as "longstanding prohibitions," I think your highlighting might be bit editorial. Scalia may be saying, "we're not upending these specific things," rather than, "we're not upending anything that's longstanding."
More on this in one of the amicus briefs for the New York case.
Reply With Quote
  #3192  
Old 05-14-2019, 7:43 AM
pink_toaster's Avatar
pink_toaster pink_toaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 691
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93chipper View Post
The handgun roster is a absolute joke and a problem because of the black market after all look at how many police officers got in trouble for straw purchases and I don’t even know why they are exempt from the law if their job is to enforce it..
And not only them being exempt... but allowing their spouses to have such "unsafe" guns. I really despised that LE is allowed to buy the guns but we aren't. Make the unfairness fair to EVERYONE!
__________________
Guns and diamonds are a girl's best friends!
Reply With Quote
  #3193  
Old 05-14-2019, 8:31 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pink_toaster View Post
And not only them being exempt... but allowing their spouses to have such "unsafe" guns. I really despised that LE is allowed to buy the guns but we aren't. Make the unfairness fair to EVERYONE!
The gun grabbers say they are exempt because of superior training makes them safe.

The reality is its just a handout to the police union to get their support of the law.

What is even worse is how they twist "safety". Originally the roaster was about making the gun more safe in operating as the user intends. So magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, etc. So exactly how does microstamping help the gun act as the user intends? Safety is now defined as safety from guns, so as the antis believe anything that stops a sale is safer.
Reply With Quote
  #3194  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:38 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
For much of American history, the constitution didn't apply fully and equally to women, African Americans, or maybe even white men who didn't own land. Now it does. The fact that it didn't (and that now it does) doesn't have any bearing on current 2A jurisprudence. We understand the 2A to apply equally now, as we do all rights.
The first part of this statement is historically accurate. The second is not accurate. Post 3189 calls into question the sloganizing that the "original intent" and "history" of the Second Amendment should guide the judiciary's construction of the 2nd Amendment, "be careful what you wish for," precisely because as you state our contemporary understanding, not originalism and history, inform our values of personal autonomy and personal sovereignty, "We understand the 2A to apply equally now..." The historical analysis of the right to possess arms is the path for justifying regulation in Heller. To continue beating on that drum of "history" of arms legislation vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment is self-defeating. That the historical construction undermines arms ownership is the central premise in the Amicus Brief of the African American Gun Association. See "Post Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence," pp. 13-14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aboof View Post
As far as "longstanding prohibitions," I think your highlighting might be bit editorial. Scalia may be saying, "we're not upending these specific things," rather than, "we're not upending anything that's longstanding." But more importantly, for most of American history, the 2A (and the rest of the bill of rights) applied only to the federal government, not the states. A ban on concealed carry in Boston in 1789 doesn't imply anything about the 2A in 2019, because the 2A didn't apply to the Boston or Massachusetts governments then, but it does now (as of McDonald in 2010).
Legal analysis is IRAC. The above are rules in the case. McDonald v. Chicago addresses incorporation and whether a law completely forbidding arms ownership (referring to "home," "Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson (Chicago petitioners) are Chicago residents who would like to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense but are prohibited from doing so by Chicago’s firearms laws.") is unconstitutional, but does not reach the issue of possession of arms outside of the home. The McDonald decision reiterates:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id.We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
The Court is addressing the State, not the people, when it writes, "We repeat those assurances here." Heller's exceptions swallow the 2nd Amendment, such that in the absence of total prohibition on possession of arms, anything goes. This is a roster thread, where the rule- right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"- is the kryptonite. The Bill of Rights is drafted in the Negative not the positive; arms owning hopefuls will get whatever is left over.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-14-2019 at 2:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3195  
Old 05-20-2019, 7:49 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 377
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Not mentioned from what I can tell

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_1bn2.pdf

2 more weeks?
Reply With Quote
  #3196  
Old 05-20-2019, 3:56 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,194
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVIP View Post
Not mentioned from what I can tell

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_1bn2.pdf

2 more weeks?
Cliff notes?
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #3197  
Old 05-21-2019, 8:28 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 377
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Cliff notes are there is still no mention of Pena at all. No cert, no denial. Limbo continues
Reply With Quote
  #3198  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:43 AM
Federalist50 Federalist50 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The en banc for Young is also being stayed in the 9th pending a SCOTUS decision in the New York case. The limbo for Pena relates and continues...
Reply With Quote
  #3199  
Old 05-21-2019, 5:05 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not to get too far astray, but going back and reading Heller II, does anyone else detect something chilly going on between Ginsburg and Kavanaugh?
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #3200  
Old 05-21-2019, 5:18 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,033
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federalist50 View Post
The en banc for Young is also being stayed in the 9th pending a SCOTUS decision in the New York case. The limbo for Pena relates and continues...
Hopefully if things go well in New York... This will also effect flanagan in the 9th circus as well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.